[CRISP-TEAM] [Feedback] CRISP Team Statement: Our role and the next steps

[Izumi Okutani]

Thanks Nurani for clarifying. Yes, it was clear you are happy with Andrei's suggestion and I just wasn't totally sure if you were expecting edits on other part :)


CRISP Team,
This is sent out to the ianaxfer at nro.net as you have probably seen. 

Please share this with the respective RIR mailing lists as this is important message.

Wish you all a nice weekend!!


Izumi


On 2015/04/11 0:54, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
> Yes, apologies if that wasn't clear.
> I'm happy with Andrei's wording.
> 
> Thanks and have a great weekend everyone!
> 
> Nurani
> 
> 
> 
>> On 10 apr 2015, at 17:43, Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic.ad.jp> wrote:
>>
>> Nurani,
>>
>> I am curently assuming that your concern is resolved after I have reflected Andrei's suggested wording.
>> I will wait for another 1 hour before sending it out so let me know if you have further comments before this. Thanks!
>>
>> Izumi
>>
>>> On 2015/04/10 22:08, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10 apr 2015, at 09:51, Andrei Robachevsky <robachevsky at isoc.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thank you very much, Izumi, for your response.
>>>>
>>>> Izumi Okutani wrote on 10/04/15 07:31:
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>        Therefore, in case there are any concerns for implementation to
>>>>> be consistent with the numbers community proposal, including reflecting
>>>>> the seperability of the IANA Numbering Services operator, it should be
>>>>> communicated to the
>>>>>        community's attention in a transparent manner.
>>>>
>>>> I suggest a slight modification:
>>>>
>>>> "Therefore, in case there are any concerns regarding consistency of the
>>>> implementation with the numbers community proposal, ..."
>>>>
>>>> I have a little discomfort with the "separability" term, although I
>>>> understand it has become part of the IANA lingua franca.
>>>
>>> I agree. I've held back responding, simply because I didn't have better wording to propose, but I agree with Andrei's general point(s).
>>>
>>> (Both on the term "separability", and the general point about being clear on what feedback we are seeking from the community.)
>>>
>>>
>>>> Cannot we
>>>> simply say (for instance in your first point):
>>>>
>>>> - The ability to choose an operator for the IANA numbering services is
>>>> seen as one of the most important elements in ensuring the
>>>> accountability of the IANA numbering function operator.
>>>>
>>>> and continue using this throughout our communication?
>>>>
>>>> This will mitigate a possible perception that we definitely want to
>>>> separate these services from ICANN, which is not the case, I believe.
>>>
>>> I'm happy with this wording. Thanks Andrei!
>>> Nurani
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Andrei
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> CRISP mailing list
>>>> CRISP at nro.net
>>>> https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/crisp
>>